"Same sex marriage is completely different from the Lawrence issue, since there the whole purpose, and plenty of gay activist writings admit this, is to obtain government imprimatur and affirmation of homosexual activity. There is no law preventing adults of the same sex from living together in an intimate relationship. It simply does not need government extolling, which is what is illegitimate and to what most traditional Christian believers object to most strongly."
I do not see it as extolling, just realizing that homosexual couples exist! Anyway a couple posts back in this line I talked about my "no more marriage, just civil unions" idea. Leave marriage for the church and civil unions for the bureaucrats.
"We are NOT, NOT, NOT advocating that the government impose our religious beliefs on others. We simply ask for equal treatment and that the government not impose liberal moral and religious viewpoints on us."
Really...then why the talk of things called "moral values" being big buzzwords into attracting votes? I just don't believe that what you say. I would like to...but I just can't imagine the Falwell, Robertsons, Bauers, and Dobsons of the world letting go of the shortcuts of legislation just to merely go into the hard work of grass roots change. I feel the same way about those who want to press lawsuits on the Boy Scouts for not allowing gay scoutmasters or Augusta National not allowing women..they are a private organization who can make their own decisions on who they admit. If the right could just stop trying to enforce religion in the public sector and the left could just stop trying to enforce PCness in the private sector..just sit down and shake hands and promise it..then we got something. All and all...lobbying and violence are the refuge of scoundrels and the uncharismatic.
"In utopia, maybe but in the real world what you see as fit for yourself is an imposition on your neighbor. What you espouse is anarchy. Please try again"
That is the classic Bill O'Reilly response isn't it? Start loosening things to much and anarchy is sure to happen. Of course we have to find a good place somewhere in between totalitarianism and anarchy..and I think that only having legislation on cases of non-consensual violence, fraud, and theft is a good place...closer to anarchy than totalitarianism i admit. Sure, I'll try again and clarify myself. Do what you see fit and your own life only!
"This doesn;t answer why? You merely restated your premise. In fact, the Christian and Judeo religions are founded on the concept that maximum freedom comes from having certain minimal laws."
Sounds more like a statement from the Religious left rather than right...
I should also give a pat on the back to Cyborg...sorry he offended you. But you can start your own walking club that is Christian friendly...don't patronize him...perhaps I chose the wrong thread for my statement..probably because I see persecution as abominable when it is legislated as the state cannot and should not have control about persecution. Anyway its just like a business...feel like their service is lousy and they have short changed you..spread the word and not shop there..they will sink!
"Of course we have to find a good place somewhere in between totalitarianism and anarchy..and I think that only having legislation on cases of non-consensual violence, fraud, and theft is a good place...closer to anarchy than totalitarianism i admit. Sure, I'll try again and clarify myself. Do what you see fit and your own life only!"
OK lwrwbw, please define non-consensual violence as opposed to consenual violence.
You still have not answered WHY? Seems like you have no answer, other than you don't like Christians. Sad, I expected at least a cohesive response to back up your unsupported premises.